If Spurs Were United, We’d Never Be Defeated

April 1, 2011April 1, 2011 / Alan / 11 Comments

Tribalism is the essence of being a football fan. United in support of our obscure object of desire, Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, we pledge everlasting love and set aside other relationships in preference to the one that truly matters. We have our colours, our temple of worship, our rituals. At games or out and about, I strike up conversations with perfect strangers because they are navy blue and white. The Lane, just before kick-off, I shake hands with people I see more frequently than I do most of my friends and relatives, people with whom I feel a deep common bond in a place where I am more at home than anywhere else on earth. I don’t know their surnames, where they live, what they do or think, anything of any significance, yet none of this matters, because we are Spurs.

Scratch the surface, however, and deep fissures shatter this fragile unity. At least, that’s the conclusion I’ve reached after reflecting on how this blog has dealt with some of the major issues that face the club. Two topics have produced more comments than any other articles that I’ve written over the past couple of years, namely Stratford and the Madrid tickets. Not necessarily more views than other pieces, in fact ironically my most read article is an innocuous match report on this season’s away game at Everton that was picked up by Everton sites and messageboards, Surprised and pleased at my even-handed approach, they extended fraternal greetings as fellow football supporters and wished us good luck in Europe. It’s the reaction that has been markedly different, revealing deep divisions not just on the topic itself but, significantly, on the very nature of being a Spurs fan.

There are several pieces on Stratford; the comments sections on a couple are not for the fainthearted. The single biggest issue to face Spurs since the club was in deep financial distress under Scholar was bound to provoke a meaty debate. Last week I offered some constructive criticism of the ticket office’s appalling treatment of fans trying to buy Madrid tickets but the fascinating comments section, which as a regular correspondent noted somewhat disconcertingly for an author was as good as the article, revealed distinct differences of opinion about the solutions.

To be very clear – keep the comments coming. I read them all, often respond and don’t censor or delete them. If you take the time and trouble to not only read the blog but also comment, I’m genuinely grateful. Interaction is what blogging and the internet is all about. This piece is not about who is right and wrong. Perhaps I was being naive but the ferocity with which some people got stuck into to fellow Spurs fans did take me by surprise. With the OS, for example, I’m anti-Stratford but understood the concerns of people who see it as the way forward. The fairest way of distributing tickets for big games is via the loyalty points system, not perfect but the least worst. However, several people rightly pointed out that if they have a membership, they are just as entitled to go for the tickets as anyone else. In fact, a wider distribution encourages a broader based support.

In the end, we’re all Spurs, right? Wrong apparently. As the debates raged, the nature of a being a fan came into dispute. Are people who have been attending games for many years more a fan than others who come once or twice a season? Younger fans in this equation will always be at a disadvantage because of their date of birth. Family circumstances and money prevent an increasing number of supporters from coming to see the club they love. When I was in this position for a few years, I remember listening on the radio to a home game when we were near the bottom of the table and physically being in contortions of agony until victory. Would I have been more of a fan if I had been at the ground? Yet who can deny the phenomenal dedication of those who give up their time and money to follow them around the country. Some tried to find the coefficient between the two. With Stratford, both sides saw themselves as defending the club’s future, both with very different views as to how this might be achieved.

To repeat myself, I’m not talking here about who is right or wrong about Stratford or ticket distribution: I’ve written about that elsewhere, feel free to comment. Rather, I’m taking this as evidence of divisions within Spurs fans that are exposed whenever problems arise. I’d say that the one thing we agree about is that we get behind the team, but the fact is, there’s disagreement there too, the two extremes being those who cheer on regardless and those who feel justified in complaining openly by booing or abusing our own team and/or players. Most of the time it’s a comforting and humbling experience to be part of the worldwide Spurs community. Sometimes, that comfort is an illusion.

Ironic that I’d been mulling this over in a week when a 4% rise in season tickets has been announced. I’ll pay of course, and Daniel Levy knows I will. More importantly, he knows that if I don’t then someone else will. For the record, my ticket has gone up by over 6%. Increased operating costs are the reason, apparently. I work for a charity. We have cut our costs as much as we dare because of the current climate, but Spurs are seemingly immune from the pressures we all face because the law of supply and demand has come down heavily in their favour. Increased revenue from Europe and TV ( did I see an increase of over 40% mentioned?) has not been reflected in concessions to the fans. There’s no moral imperative to consider the loyal fans – but again, I’m being naive. Levy knows we are divided. I’m reminded of the industrial disputes of the 70s and 80s. Two factors overruled everything else – the unity of the workforce and how real was the possibility of a strike. Levy knows our weaknesses and will exploit them.

Spurs – What’s The Point of a Football Club?

March 4, 2011March 4, 2011 / Alan / 20 Comments

We the fans clasp the precious heritage and soul of our club in our hands. In a mixed up muddled up shook up world, we and only we provide continuity and unstinting commitment. Players and managers come and go. They may kiss the badge or effectively trample it underfoot, we hold it close to our hearts. We will be back next week.

In the build-up to big games, the media turn to us to validate the significance: the atmosphere builds, the ground is rocking, the town is alight. Not literally, presumably. Yet in the cold light of day, we will be told that football is a business. Be realistic – make money in order not only to be viable but also to compete in the quest for the Holy Grail, the sacred, some would say mythical, Next Level. No one is quite sure where that is or how to reach it, but we’re on our way. Teams field weakened sides in cup competitions because the bigger prize is to climb one or two greasy steps to mid-table mediocrity. Supporters kvetch about ticket prices. Crowds drop but that’s fine, as long as the drink is flowing in the corporate lounge. Success on the field is no longer the only goal. So what, exactly, is a football club for?

Until comparatively recently, there was a relatively straightforward answer. Each club was a private company run by a small board of directors who certainly controlled and probably owned the vast majority of the strictly limited shares. Well over 90% of the income was generated by fans coming through the gates. Those gates may have been ancient and rusting but the directors didn’t to need waste money on oil, let alone on any facilities inside the ground because the fans would come to see their team regardless. More success on the field, the fuller the terraces.

In the last 25 years, the number of stakeholders in the club, any club, has increased. The main newcomer is the shareholder because most of the big clubs are now public companies. Spurs were forerunners as Irving Scholar made us the first club to float on the Stock Exchange.

Now, when key decisions are made, as with any public company the interests of the shareholders must be taken into consideration, and that means profit. The composition of the board is different too. Directors are co-opted for their skills and influence. Most significantly, Tottenham Hotspur PLC is owned by ENIC, the English National Investment Company. The clue’s in the name – they need a return on that investment. Finally, football clubs still attract overbearing egos to their cosy boardroom, hoping to bask in the particular fame and glory that only our wonderful game can bestow. However, they are also doing what they do best, nose down on the trail of the filthy lucre. Alan Sugar is hardly revered for his achievements at Spurs, but despite a lack of success on the field and below capacity crowds, when he cashed in his chip he trousered a profit estimated to be anywhere between £25m and £35m overall. He saw an undervalued public company with assets and the capacity for growth.

Other stakeholders have elbowed their way into consideration. The F.A. always had a role in governing the game but it has been unceremoniously shoved aside by the all-conquering Premier League, whose aim is to generate as much money as possible for its members, rather than for the game as a whole. Sky TV is so close to the Prem, if we kicked the League up the backside, Murdoch would get concussion. The very fixture list is governed by their requirements. It’s the same in Europe. After a make-over, the revered European Cup, the ultimate prize, now rewards league failure with a lucrative and unnecessary group stage, so everyone has more chances of thrusting their noses into the trough.

This brave new world has distorted our priorities and our language. In the past, defining ‘success’ was easy enough – win something, if not, finish as far up the league as possible with a decent cup run thrown in for good measure. Now, success can mean other things. The prospect of winning a trophy, certainly of advancing as far as possible in a cup competition, is secondary to Premier league survival. The surprise is not that sides field a weakened team, it’s that anyone is surprised. Finishing fourth in most sports is finishing nowhere. In football, it opens the door to Aladdin’s cave. We fight, mewl and screech in the pursuit of also-ran status.

These issues apply to most top clubs in the country but at Spurs, recent events have thrown them into sharp relief. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of a move to Stratford, the debate created lines of battle. The Olympic site was the best decision in terms of the club’s finances, according to the board. Increased capacity and better infrastructure at an allegedly lower price was in the best interests of the club, as Daniel Levy put it. Many fans thought differently – it wasn’t in their interests, playing far from home, in another team’s territory in fact. Many would have gladly sacrificed the sanitised plazas with their cafes and leisure park and a trip on the Jubilee Line for a proper rebuilt football ground in our spiritual home, no matter how difficult it was to get a decent pre-match cappuccino.

In the long run, so the argument went, financial stability and increased income benefits us all because this can be re-invested in the team. However, it also means better dividends for shareholders and the club is a far more attractive prospect for potential buyers, should ENIC wish to sell, bearing in mind that the object of any investment company is to maximise the return on its investment.

In the debate, the name of another stakeholder was taken in vain, the local community. In the desire to get planning permission for the NDP, much was made of the improvements it would bring to a run-down area of London. As soon as that permission was granted, the people of Tottenham were unceremoniously and ruthlessly jettisoned, having served their purpose. Now all that mattered was money.

This conflict has always been there. Once it was a walk or bus-ride to the club for most spectators. These days, fans come from far and wide and whilst they bring business to local traders, they also bring disruption and traffic chaos. The anti-Stratford lobby looked to local MP David Lammy for support but he has a duty towards his constituents, not the likes of you and me. I was talking to a Spurs fan who has lived in the area for many years. Despite the much-publicised community work and appearances of the players in worthwhile local projects, he is scathing about their lack of genuine commitment to N17, saying the club has little or no connection to the locality and no genuine interest in the issue.

I believe the club has a duty to the community of which it is a part, regardless of whether it increases gates. The activities that do take place are valuable and should be extended. There’s the education project that brings football and education to local children and to those with disabilities, plus charity donations and the support of a football team for homeless people. Long may this continue, and should become a primary goal of the club, one of the benchmarks against which success can be measured.

My definition of success for the club is an organisation that has sufficient financial stability and the resources to function at the highest level of performance. Finish as high up the league as possible, and win something. This is not the be all and end all, however. The pursuit of profit and success on the filed at all costs must be mitigated by a sense of responsibility towards two other key stakeholders, the fans and the local community. If this means redistributing a proportion of our income or keeping a lid on ticket prices, then thinking twice about paying vastly inflated salaries, so be it.

Football and footballers are routinely vilified as poor role models for the young people who are in thrall to its charms. Watching my 11 year old grandson on a Sunday, their enthusiasm is infectious, However, there’s this one kid who hurls himself to the ground in agony if an opponent so much as touches him, others who mimic precisely bizarre gestures of open-palmed innocence if the ref blows against them. Ashley Cole brings a rifle to his workplace yet he’s free to play a few days later because it’s a vital game, one where one manager refuses to follow the rules that apply to all his peers and talk to a camera.

Football has a different, better message to deliver. Clubs should embrace the opportunities they have and exercise some social responsibility to their fans and their community and if this means success on the field or in the boardroom is harder to achieve, that’s fine. In fact, the League is so awash with money, this would cost but a fraction of their resources. Clubs can be role models too, of a organisation that understands its priorities, sticks to decent values and does the right thing. That would make us feel more part of what’s going on and ensure the club’s future by looking after the people who truly matter.

Spurs Lose the Olympic Stadium But the Real Conflict Has Only Just Begun

February 10, 2011 / Alan / 36 Comments

Politics. All down to politics, as this blog has been saying for a while. The BBC has ‘learned’ that West Ham will win the Olympic Stadium bidding process. In the language of politics, it’s a leak from a sound source, otherwise the BBC would not have gone so big on it. It will happen. Rejoice, oh rejoice unto the heavens! Yet the abiding feeling this morning is the realisation that far from being over, the real issue for Spurs fans, the plans that will affect our development in the next hundred years, that battle has only just begun.

This decision has nothing to do with football or the clubs. It’s a political settlement based on the promises around the Olympic Stadium that date from the bid itself, the legacy and the perceived public reaction if the nod went to an organisation prepared to knock down Britain’s showpiece. The arguments advocated by Levy or for that matter the odious Sullivan in yesterday’s Standard (“the decision is about a promise made in the Queen’s name”) count for virtually nothing. Coe and the athletics lobby as 2012 approaches, Cameron and Boris with cold shudders down their spines as they imagine themselves pictured with the wrecking ball, the government being seen to renege on Olympic undertakings in the most public of ways – these are the factors.

I’ll tell you why this choice was made – my office. Two blokes in the workplace, me and one other who’s not interested in football in the slightest. The rest are women, only one of whom is keen on sport. Lovely people, and yes of course women like football, but not these. There’s not a lot of footy banter going on.

Except over the stadium move. Everyone knows about it. They have no idea who Daniel Levy is, no club allegaince or the faintest notion of a legacy. But they all know Spurs plan to demolish the stadium and they are livid. Many of them blame me personally, even when I point out my opposition. To them, it’s simple: ‘How dare they knock down our stadium?’ Our stadium. There it is. Not Spurs’ or West Ham’s. Ours.

The fans of both clubs, and Orient’s too for that matter, are so embroiled in claim and counter-claim about territory, heritage, revenue streams and sightlines that we fail to appreciate the big picture so beloved of politicians in local and national government. The public want the Olympic Stadium. They are proud of it and proud Britain is hosting the Games. Woe betide a politician who ignores the public mood, whatever they may consider in private, especially so in these straitened times when election promises are returning to haunt members of the government.

In saying that the arguments advanced by both clubs have been so much pissing in the wind, it has to be acknowledged that West Ham have caught the public mood much better than Levy and his PR department. To me, the notion of the Porn Barons and Karren Brady as champions of the people is incomprehensible and frankly nauseating. However, they have successfully presented themselves as guardians of the Games and upholders of decent, honest values, of keeping promises and keeping faith with ‘the youth of London’, whilst at the same time burying the news that theirs is the option that uses public money. Levy meanwhile has been caught on his heels, belatedly desperate to catch up as West Ham set the agenda and the pace. It helps to have a column in the Sun, mind.

Above all, the public and the media like a simple story, and West Ham have successfully cast Spurs as the baddies. This debate about the future of sport in this country has been dramatised as a battle between good and evil and we have lost. Serious damage has been done to our reputation, unwarranted in my view because this was not what it was about at all, but real in the eyes of the public nonetheless. Levy the Loser is the tag he will find hard to shake off, never mind the public, in the eyes of the media and his fellow Premier League chairman. Remember this is the guy who drives a hard bargain and as the deadlines approach, does not blink. Until now.

My opposition to Stratford has been implacable from the start. I’m pleased with this decision but this is just the beginning, because it throws the long-term problems of THFC into sharp focus. If not Stratford, then where? The club cannot challenge the top teams in the long run in a ground that holds fewer than 37,000 people. Figures published today by Deloittes show that of the top 7 clubs, only one, L’arse, made a profit. Spurs have the dubious honour of making the least loss, about £6.5m compared with Man U at nearly £80m, Chelsea at £70m and Man City £121m. The matchday revenues at Spacecity North London are 5 times greater than ours, their profit £56m last year.

I hope we can return to the NDP: I understand the costs have risen but remain wary of Levy’s sudden change of tack. Let’s leave the specifics for another day. One thing is certain, that Daniel Levy remains the key figure who holds not only the balance sheet but also our hopes and dreams. There’s no one else we can turn to: he’s the man in charge. Yet after this mauling, I wonder if he still has the stomach to fight a series of new, possibly protracted battles. We need him to be at his best but he must be feeling battered, sore and bruised. Despite his decade or so in the hotseat, he’s never given the impression of being a passionate man on a mission. Whatever you think about Stratford, it will be hard for anyone to generate the motivation for the challenges to come. It would not be a surprise if he walked away.

This to my mind is the biggest problem Spurs and Spurs fans have to face in the coming weeks and months. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that Levy should have done so much more to take the fans with him. Most accept his arguments that the club must change in some way. The fans and board united has to be the way forward. I’ve been an opponent, at times showing a degree of bitterness that is not part of my character, but Daniel, here’s my hand. Reach out and take it.

Stratford Decision Day Looms: No One Bothers To Ask The Fans

January 20, 2011January 20, 2011 / Alan / 36 Comments

A few seasons ago Tottenham Hotspur proudly celebrated 125 years of history. In 8 days time a decision will be taken that could shape its destiny for the next 125. It will be taken behind closed doors, by people eminent no doubt in their field but who are wholly unknown to the the public, who have little interest in football and none whatsoever in the future well-being of our club. The closest we get to a football man is the former managing director of Arsenal. Certainly no one has bothered to ask the fans.

The news that the Spurs board wanted to move to the Olympic site at Stratford seeped out gradually in the weeks before Christmas. There’s never been any formal announcement or acknowledgement. However, the detailed plans that were published as part of the bidding process for the post-2012 use of the Olympic Park indicated that far from this being a back-up should the redevelopment next door to White Hart Lane fall through, in fact the club had invested tens of millions in preparatory work. Moreover in AEG they had forged an unholy alliance with a major player in the leisure industry, for whom failure was not an option.

At the time, this caused a great deal of interest, or so I thought. Daniel Levy shrewdly kept a low profile but suddenly previously reticent board members like Sir Keith Mills were available to the media, talking up the possibilities of the site and as a secondary consideration mentioning that it represented a cost-effective option for Spurs. Other former members of the Olympic bidding process were co-opted to posts at the club.

TOMM signalled the dangers under the emotive headline: ‘Betrayal’. I make no apologies – football exercises my emotions like nothing else on this earth. However, the news did not spread amongst either Spurs fans or the public at large until two weeks ago. Despite regular dire warnings from the West Ham board, especially the media-savvy Karren Brady, it was the unlikely figure of the architect who has led Spurs’ design programme who put the cat amongst the pigeons. The media suddenly awoke to the consequences of the Spurs bid – the Olympic Stadium, the pride of Britain in 2012, was due for demolition. No athletics track either.

The fans picked up the mood too. Jolted forcibly out of their complacency, few were now able to claim that this was the Levy fall-back position. I was surprised and dismayed that so few Spurs supporters were unaware of the news but it has sent shockwaves through our worldwide community. It’s fair to say that by no means all the fans agree with my view that we should not move to Stratford, but complacency is no longer an option. Take a look, if you are brave enough, at the comments section of my previous piece on the stadium. Leaving aside the cyberwarrior bluster it reveals deep divisions not only in the debate around should we stay or should we go but also about the fundamental question of what it means to be a Spurs fan.

The fans are the heart and soul of the club. We were there 125 years ago, we’re here now and we will be here for as long as our team pulls on the white shirt. Players and chairmen come and go, we hand down the white shirt to our children and grandchildren.

Yet when it comes to this most momentous of decisions, we are the very last people to be consulted. We turn up through rain and shine, good times and bad, we pay our money and pay the wages. Right now, we don’t exist.

In stark contrast, the club were falling over themselves to consult during the planning process for the new stadium in N17, otherwise known as the Northumberland Development Project. I quote from the club website, as they worked towards the new stadium:

“ The previous application received strong backing from the local community and fans alike – with over 800 letters of support sent to Haringey Council from individuals, groups and businesses. The changes made directly reflect the Club’s desire to find the very best solution for the Club and the locality – and are the culmination of consultation and discussion with the Government’s Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), English Heritage and other agencies as part of our desire to appeal to the widest possible audience.”

Fans were encouraged to contact Haringey Council. Local people and businesses were roped in. There was an online consultation exercise. They needed us then. Now, our opinions have no effect on the decision-takers. We have no value for the club, hence the deathly silence.

While I’m at it, here’s another quote, again from the club website:

A Flagship for Regeneration

All successful regeneration projects start with a single high profile ‘anchor’ scheme. The Northumberland Development Project represents an investment of hundreds of millions of pounds into North Tottenham and we believe has the potential to be a flagship for the wider regeneration of the area – attracting additional investment and securing significant benefits for the local community:

An even greater ability for the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation to address key social and community issues.
• World-class design which people will be proud to live near and visit.
• New affordable housing, both for rent and for key workers such as nurses and teachers.
• A significant investment in North Tottenham with a comprehensive scheme, not just a stadium.

Remembering our History

• The Club recognises the importance of remembering our history as a part of the new plans.

• We have the opportunity to re-house and re-locate key items which reflect and celebrate our proud history in Tottenham.

• We shall look to celebrate our past, display our memorabilia in a worthy environment and retain much of that which fans hold dear.

• This will be achieved both in the fabric of the buildings, in the new Club Museum and within the public spaces including the public square and lower courtyard.

• We intend to locate the famous Bill Nicholson Gates between the former White Hart pub and the Red House, which is the location of the current Bill Nicholson Way.

• We plan to put the famous cockerel, currently in our Club reception, on a plinth outside Warmington House as one of the first visible symbols fans will see as they approach from Seven Sisters.

• The old Club Board Room on the first floor of the Red House will be protected and retained and consideration given to bringing it back into use for appropriate Club meetings and Museum activities.

• We are also looking at how we decorate the gates and structures outside the stadium on the High Road and what other public art we commission across the site.

• We have established a Heritage Group which will consult on this work.

What price history and regeneration now? Literally: it has no value therefore our heritage is consigned to the dustbin, vacant rhetoric that has served its purpose and is now discarded.

Levy apparently lacks the courage to appear in public to discuss his plans. It’s ironic that this furore comes at a time when he has largely won over our support by the way he has run the club. For years his image was tarnished by poor judgement regarding the key appointment in any football club, the manager. Hoddle came and went, to be followed by what felt like the longest reign of any caretaker when, under David Pleat, we could so easily have been relegated. Santini failed, then Jol was removed because he was successful but not successful enough. With Ramos we plunged to the foot of the league until Our Harry came down from on high (well, the south coast) to save us all.

However, under Levy we have reaped the rewards of a consistent, prudent approach to money. He has resisted calls to make marquee signings, instead driving a series of hard bargains over salaries and fees. We’ve missed out on a few players in the process but the policy of buying good young players has more than made up for that as they mature. Also, the ludicrous problems experienced by Newcastle, Manchester United, West Ham and Liverpool are evidence enough to demonstrate the anguish caused by a potentially fatal combination of overbearing ego and an eye on the profit margin. Levy created sustainable financial stability and we owe him a lot.

Perhaps his biggest achievement, his personal legacy, was the new stadium. Finding a site near to the Lane was remarkable in overcrowded London. I don’t envy L’Arse their cavernous soulless spaceship but my goodness how I secretly admired the fact that stayed so close to home. Levy, however, trumped them, because we had a proper football ground, with stands close to the pitch and rising steeply plus an ‘end’. Thus the atmosphere of the Lane, its very essence, was preserved for generations to come.

This is why we felt safe with Levy, because this above all else proved he knew what football means. A proper ground, in our home! He consulted the fans, listened and responded. He knew what we wanted and did something about it. Now that bond lies in tatters. There’s no consultation now because he does not want to hear what we have to say. That’s why I feel so badly let down.

Levy would say that he’s being consistent, acting with the same financial prudence that has taken us this far. I certainly do not want to bankrupt the club, but we should do everything that is humanly possible to stay in N17, rather than cut and run to Stratford.

So it’s back to the Olympic Park Legacy Committee. A baroness, a Sir and a Lord, plus members with backgrounds in the local community, athletics, politics and planning. They’re so on the ball, they only realised a couple of days ago that one colleague, Tessa Sanderson, has links with Newham, i.e. a partner with one of the bids. They will make a recommendation next Friday, which then goes to Boris and the government for a final decision. It’s possible that on the 28th they can defer their choice to seek more information, so don’t hold your breath. This is fast becoming a political hot potato so they will proceed with caution.

As it stands, Spurs bid is seen as the stronger financially whilst West Ham scores on the legacy issues. How the balance tips is anyone’s guess. Nothing is emerging from the committee. Athletics is having a big push in favour of keeping the Olympic Stadium and this could be decisive, but it is only one of several factors the OPLC is duty bound to consider. As I said last week, the public will be baffled by any plan that knocks the stadium down and I suspect Cameron does not want to be remembered as the man with the wrecking ball.

Whatever happens, Spurs fans will not have a say, and nor for that matter will the supporters of west Ham. Fans left out once more. Earlier I said in passing that we should be heard because we are the ones who pay the wages, but the fact is, that is no longer true. The majority of a club’s income comes not from gate receipts but from TV and other rights and from the corporate sector. They’ll care when it comes to the noise in the big games, the club and Sky love us then, but right now we’re out in the cold looking in.